AMD EPYC 7F72 vs Intel Xeon 6520P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall picture: the Intel Xeon 6520P wins 15 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 secures only 2 wins. The margin of victory is not uniform, however, and the specific workloads reveal where each processor holds a distinct advantage.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Intel Xeon 6520P demonstrates a consistent lead across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 5392 against the EPYC's 4518, a 19.3% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a nearly identical margin, with 761 versus 637, also a 19.5% lead. This pattern repeats in R20 multicore (22467 vs 18828, 19.3%), R20 single-core (3171 vs 2657, 19.3%), R23 multicore (53495 vs 44829, 19.3%), and R23 single-core (7552 vs 6328, 19.3%). The uniformity of this 19.3% delta across multiple generations of the Cinebench workload suggests a fundamental per-thread performance advantage for the Intel part, not just a scaling effect from additional cores or cache.

Moving to the Passmark suite, the Intel Xeon 6520P extends its lead in several compute-heavy categories. The most striking result is in floating-point math, where the Xeon scores 162862 against the EPYC's 108437, a 50.2% margin. This is the largest single delta in the entire dataset. Extended instructions also favor Intel heavily: 64557 versus 46936, a 37.5% advantage. Single-thread performance is another strong point for the Xeon, with a score of 3356 versus 2384, a 40.8% lead. Integer math shows an 18.3% edge (214288 vs 181103), and the multithread Passmark score is 62936 versus 52740, a 19.3% difference that mirrors the Cinebench results.

The Intel Xeon 6520P also wins the remaining Passmark categories, albeit by smaller margins. Data compression is close: 841518 versus 808795, a 4% difference. Finding prime numbers shows a 5.6% edge (526 vs 498), and the physics test is 11.6% ahead (7209 vs 6459). These wins, while less dramatic than the floating-point or single-thread results, still contribute to the overall benchmark average.

The AMD EPYC 7F72's two wins are specific and worth noting. In data encryption, it scores 56261 against the Xeon's 45188, a 19.7% advantage. This is a significant reversal in a security-related workload. The other win is in random string sorting, where the EPYC scores 102436 versus 95736, a 6.5% lead. These two categories suggest that the Zen 2 architecture retains specific strengths in certain memory-access patterns or cryptographic instruction paths.

Looking at the aggregate figures, the Intel Xeon 6520P holds an average benchmark score of 93786, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 averages 85072. The Xeon's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus (delta 0%), the AMD EPYC 4564P (-1.5%), the AMD EPYC 9175F (-1.9%), and the AMD EPYC 4565P (-2.1%). The EPYC 7F72's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus (delta 1.3%), the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (1.5%), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (2.4%), and the AMD EPYC 9135 (2.5%). Both processors sit at the 96th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating that despite their head-to-head differences, both are high-end parts relative to the broader market.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most workloads. The Intel Xeon 6520P is the superior processor for compute-heavy, multi-threaded tasks. Its 19.3% lead across all Cinebench versions and the Passmark multithread test, combined with a 50.2% advantage in floating-point math and a 40.8% lead in single-thread performance, makes it the clear choice for rendering, scientific simulation, and general-purpose server workloads where raw integer and floating-point throughput dominate.

The AMD EPYC 7F72, however, has a specific niche. Its 19.7% win in data encryption and 6.5% win in random string sorting indicate that it handles certain data-movement and cryptographic workloads more efficiently. For a server environment that processes large volumes of encrypted traffic or performs heavy string manipulation, the EPYC's architecture appears better suited, despite its overall lower average score.

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on the workload profile. If the priority is maximum performance across a broad range of compute tasks, the Intel Xeon 6520P is the data-backed winner. If the workload is dominated by encryption and string processing, the AMD EPYC 7F72 offers a measurable advantage in those specific areas, even though it trails in nearly every other benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 6520P leads significantly. In Passmark single-thread, it scores 3356 versus the EPYC's 2384, a 40.8% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core test also shows a 19.3% lead, with scores of 7552 and 6328 respectively.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7F72 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins two tests: data encryption (56261 vs 45188, a 19.7% advantage) and random string sorting (102436 vs 95736, a 6.5% advantage).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark floating-point math, where the Intel Xeon 6520P scores 162862 against the EPYC's 108437, a 50.2% lead.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 96th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating they are both high-end server processors despite their head-to-head differences.

Q: How do they compare in multi-threaded rendering workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon 6520P is consistently 19.3% ahead across all Cinebench multicore tests (R15, R20, and R23). The Passmark multithread test also shows a 19.3% lead for the Xeon.

Q: Which processor is better for encryption-heavy tasks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 is better for data encryption, scoring 56261 versus the Intel Xeon 6520P's 45188, a 19.7% advantage in that specific workload.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Intel Xeon 6520P has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 has a higher base clock of 3.20 GHz but a lower boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The thermal design power also differs: the Xeon is rated at 210 watts, while the EPYC is rated at 240 watts.

The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The process nodes differ as well, with the Xeon built on a 5 nm process by Intel, while the EPYC uses a 7 nm process from TSMC. The EPYC has a transistor count of 3,800 million and a die size of 74 mm², while the Xeon's die size is 598 mm² and its transistor count is not recorded.

Memory support is another point of divergence. The Xeon supports DDR5 memory with an eight-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC supports DDR4 memory, also with an eight-channel bus, but with a lower bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The PCIe capabilities also differ: the Xeon supports Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC supports Gen 4 with no lane count specified.

The release dates are far apart, with the EPYC released on 2020-04-13 and the Xeon released on 2025-02-23. The launch MSRP for the Xeon is $1295, while the EPYC has no recorded launch MSRP. The cache hierarchies also differ, as detailed in the architecture section.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 6520P is built on the Granite Rapids architecture, specifically the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) generation. It uses a 5 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The die size is 598 mm². The cache layout includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD EPYC 7F72 is based on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, from the EPYC (Zen 2 (Rome)) generation. It uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The cache configuration is different: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 192 MB of shared L3 cache.

Both processors have 24 cores and 48 threads, so the core count is identical. The key architectural differences lie in the cache sizes and the memory technology. The EPYC has a larger L3 cache (192 MB vs 144 MB), but the Xeon has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches. The Xeon's DDR5 memory support with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth is a substantial upgrade over the EPYC's DDR4 support with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon also supports PCIe Gen 5, while the EPYC is limited to Gen 4.

The production status for both is listed as active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon's integrated graphics are listed as N/A, while the EPYC's are not specified.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6520P wins in 15 of the 17 benchmark categories, making it the default choice for a broad range of server and workstation workloads. Its most decisive wins are in floating-point math (50.2% ahead), single-thread performance (40.8% ahead), and extended instructions (37.5% ahead). These results indicate that the Xeon is superior for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any application that relies heavily on floating-point arithmetic or SIMD-style instruction sets. The consistent 19.3% lead in all Cinebench tests and the Passmark multithread score also makes it the better option for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other multi-threaded content creation tasks. The Xeon's higher memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s) and DDR5 support further reinforce its advantage in memory-intensive workloads.

The AMD EPYC 7F72 wins in two specific areas: data encryption (19.7% ahead) and random string sorting (6.5% ahead). These wins point to a workload profile centered on data security and text processing. For servers that handle large amounts of encrypted network traffic, database operations involving extensive string sorting, or applications that rely on cryptographic hashing, the EPYC's architecture provides a measurable performance benefit. Its larger L3 cache (192 MB) may contribute to these wins by improving data locality for certain access patterns, though the benchmark data does not directly confirm this mechanism. For a specialized deployment where these two workload types dominate, the EPYC 7F72 offers a targeted advantage despite its lower overall average score of 85072 compared to the Xeon's 93786.